Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

@browser32,

browser32 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by that.

I mean the opposite of "schlimbliky", of course.

Quote:

Does some contradiction exist in Quantum Mechanics?

Not that I know of. It seems internally coherent to me, in its own logic, if interpreted my way at least. It does contradict other things outside of QM, and therefore the question is: where is it applicable, and where does it stops to be applicable? And what could possibly mark or explain that limit?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Potential contradictions in QM are resolved by departing from classical logic.

I disagree with this statement. I don't believe that classical logic implies a set of axioms. Quantum Mechanics has a set of axioms that are counter-intuitive, but this has nothing to do with logic. If it does, then this is a matter of definition... not of mathematics.

The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is consistent and testable.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Does the supposed fact that Schrödinger's Cat can be simultaneously alive and dead imply there is a contradiction in Quantum Mechanics?

2 Replies

@browser32,

If it implies the the Cat is both dead and alive in the same frame of reference, spacetime continuum, then it does imply a contradiction! If you rather opt for Everett's "many worlds", Multiverse approach, than it doesn't and it fits a classical Deterministic context perfectly.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Go back and read what an axiom is. He is wrong but not for the reasons you are pointing at.
The first axiom of Logic is that there is intelligibility into the world not noise. Patterns rather then pure chance and chaos. You cannot prove nor disprove such claim. You either take it as ground or dump it and go floating like Fresky does... Very Happy

The problem of poor old Fresky is lack of coherence and self consistency. Have yet to see another man speak so eloquently about fuzzy logic while expressing himself so vehemently in a self assured totally classical manner, with "is" or "is not" all over his sentences.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

The first axiom of Logic is that there is intelligibility into the world not noise.

I looked for this on Google. I found nothing that said anything close to this.

Did you just make this up, or is there something you can link me to. And I can't even imagine how you would define "intelligibility" in a mathematical way.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Dear Lord... go READ what an AXIOM is, the DEFINITION, and then dont goggle mate, THINK!
Sheeesh for squareness...

here:
"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'"

Asking for the logic of Logic is a redundancy that can only be met with metaphor or examples such as the ones I provided...

Why oh why do I have to explain things to you like if I am talking to a six year old boy?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

As a strict implication statement, "the supposed fact that Schrödinger's Cat can be simultaneously alive and dead implies there is a contradiction in Quantum Mechanics" is true or false. Is it true? For an answer, I request a simple yes or no.

1 Reply

@browser32,

You want my personal intuition? That it? Then its false!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Does some contradiction exist in Quantum Mechanics? For an answer, I request a simple yes or no.

1 Reply

@browser32,

I don't think any real phenomena out there is contradictory in nature. Are you asking for the classical Copenhagen interpretation of QM? You bet your azz is a bunch of baloney admitted by many honest up front physicists...oh by the way forget the sheep and followers those don't even grasp the topic underlying principles and consequences. Go directly to the top, the best, and see for yourself how dumb our species is!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I don't think any real phenomena out there is contradictory in nature.

It appears to me that all propositions are true. Earlier this month, I participated in a debate where I argued that a theistic god exists because all propositions are true. I feel I won the debate. Regardless of whether you believe that a theistic god exists, the debate did bring up some good material for and against the claim that all propositions are true. The debate is located at http://www.debate.org/debates/God-Exists/164/.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The paradox simply proves that the wave function does not require a human observer to collapse.

And you really need a theory for such a logical conclusion?

I think it's time for fireworks.

0 Replies

@browser32,

Your concerned on weather you won a debate??? And about all things God?
Something that is at best the most poorly described thingy in Metaphysics...
If there is a proper coinage for "God" it has more to due with maths and fractals, geometric patterns and the ground of Being, then it has to due with an anthropomorphic projection of mankind, with agency and speaking abilities...

I have spend a good deal of my life indulging in Metaphysical realistic, logical considerations, and quite honestly I have learned the best path is to reduce descriptions and properties to the most absolute universal minimum...I don't even debate it in this forum as my vision of such an "object" is so different from common grasp that it would be a waste of time. Now, what makes you think you are able to talk about such a thing?
..oh by the way try to win enlightenment and serve reason forget scoring debates...it is quite frankly childish!

0 Replies

@browser32,

Quote:

Then why are I and possibly many others being led to believe that Schrödinger's Cat can be simultaneously alive and dead? That state of being simultaneously alive and dead seems to be a contradiction. The third sentence of the Wikipedia entry for Schrödinger's Cat, located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat, asserts, supposedly along with its seven citations, that Schrödinger's Cat can be simultaneously alive and dead. If Schrödinger's Cat is simultaneously alive and dead, then that's a contradiction.

The "truth" is that Schrödinger made a mistake when used such an analogy.

Period.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The problem is in the word "seems". Just because something seems to be a contradiction, doesn't make it a contradiction. It likely seems that way because you don't understand it. Although, Quantum mechanics are so counter-intuitive that they are difficult to accept even by people who understand it. Counter-intuitive is not the same as contradictory.

The math is quite non-contradictory; it starts when a solution to Schrodinger's Equation...

$https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/327546c3f8bd78d7d533c5c04f7602086862dfd4$

From this Physicists have developed a shorthand notation to describe the superposition of states that stems from this equation. There is no mathematical contradiction. We could discuss this further if you take a class on differential equations.

The language of science is the language that people use in their lands, example, French, English, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.

Mathematics is solely the amounts.

Lets see

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mathematics

"the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically."

If you want to discuss about Quantum Mechanics with the Principle of Explosion, then you can use English to explain your point.

You can add mathematics to your exposition or explanation.

Never ever
try to explain
Quantum Mechanics
with mathematics alone,
because doing so
you are proven to be or not to be a fool,
and this is a truth that is not false but true.

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

cameronleon wrote:

The "truth" is that Schrödinger made a mistake when used such an analogy.

What do you mean by that?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

We absolutely know the "when" and the "how". We can, and do, set up experiments that make wave collapse happen. A scientist can set up an experiment and correctly predict the result with precision. And we can build machines that rely on this behavior. The results are consistent and clear.

It is the philosophical meaning that evades "consensus". But philosophical meaning is not part of science. Science is about being able to build models that are testable and can be used to make predictions.

You are playing with the impartiality involved in experiments.

For you, all experiments are "manipulated" to please the scientist's prediction.

0 Replies

@browser32,

Quote:

Does some contradiction exist in Quantum Mechanics?

Yes, lots of contradictions exist in Quantum Mechanics.

It is a flawed theory.

I can't give you the link because I think is not internet stuff.

This is an experiment where a photon will be deviated from its straight path.

The mathematical calculations were made to create the force which will deviate the photon in order to make it escape thru an orifice located at certain angle from the straight direction of the photon.

In order to check the detection of the photon, another orifice was made right on the straight direction of the path of the photon. After testing its detection several times, the procedure to deviate the photon and make it exit thru the other orifice was started.

It was successful. The photon indeed came out thru the second orifice, the one located a certain degree off the straight path.

But, the instrument detected illumination coming from the orifice located straight to the path as well.

No calculation predicted such phenomena.

It was a contradiction having a photon coming thru the orifice located at one side of the straight path but the instrument also detecting its effects thru the orifice located right in the straight path.

This is not a case of one photon located simultaneously in two places and similar deluded explanations, but a contradictory result for the experiment which overshadowed the successful deviation of the photon test.

In other words, regardless of what many poster here are trying to sell, we learn more from the universe with observation first and calculation later.

You won't find contradictions in Quantum Mechanics from axioms and similar, but physical reality plays dice a lot with this theory and physical reality always wins.

1 Reply

@browser32,

Quote:

What do you mean by that?

Because even when he was looking for the ridiculous, the analogy (thought experiment) should be testable in order to be part of science.

Another "expert" with thoughts experiments was Einstein. His ideas are ridiculous. He mentions of a fast traveling train and you standing in a train station. He states that you will see the clock inside the moving train going slow.

Well, go to a train station and wait for a fast train that won't stop but will continue its way at full speed. "Try" to see a clock hanging inside the train to check if it "appears to run slow". In such a second of clear view of something inside that train you probably won't distinguish if inside the train wagon was a clock. Lol

See?

Thoughts experiments have no value in our physical universe.

Contrary to what others say here, many theories of science are not science but philosophy.

0 Replies

Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know